Effect of a quality improvement program on compliance to the sepsis bundle in non-ICU patients: a multicenter prospective before and after cohort study

• Published in: Frontiers in medicine Vol. 10; p. 1215341
• Main Authors: Monti, Gianpaola, Rezoagli, Emanuele, Calini, Angelo, Nova, Alice, Marchesi, Silvia, Nattino, Giovanni, Carrara, Greta, Morra, Sergio, Cortellaro, Francesca, Savioli, Monica, Capra Marzani, Federico, Tresoldi, Moreno, Villa, Paolo, Greco, Stefano, Bonfanti, Paolo, Spitoni, Maria Grazia, Vesconi, Sergio, Caironi, Pietro, Fumagalli, Roberto
• Format: Journal Article
• Language: English
• Published: Frontiers Media S.A 13.11.2023
• Subjects: emergency department; medical ward; mortality; quality improvement program; Sepsis
• ISSN: 2296-858X; 2296-858X
• DOI: 10.3389/fmed.2023.1215341

Objective Sepsis and septic shock are major challenges and economic burdens to healthcare, impacting millions of people globally and representing significant causes of mortality. Recently, a large number of quality improvement programs focused on sepsis resuscitation bundles have been instituted worldwide. These educational initiatives have been shown to be associated with improvements in clinical outcomes. We aimed to evaluate the impact of a multi-faceted quality implementing program (QIP) on the compliance of a “simplified 1-h bundle” (Sepsis 6) and hospital mortality of severe sepsis and septic shock patients out of the intensive care unit (ICU). Methods Emergency departments (EDs) and medical wards (MWs) of 12 academic and non-academic hospitals in the Lombardy region (Northern Italy) were involved in a multi-faceted QIP, which included educational and organizational interventions. Patients with a clinical diagnosis of severe sepsis or septic shock according to the Sepsis-2 criteria were enrolled in two different periods: from May 2011 to November 2011 (before-QIP cohort) and from August 2012 to June 2013 (after-QIP cohort). Measurements and main results The effect of QIP on bundle compliance and hospital mortality was evaluated in a before–after analysis. We enrolled 467 patients in the before-QIP group and 656 in the after-QIP group. At the time of enrollment, septic shock was diagnosed in 50% of patients, similarly between the two periods. In the after-QIP group, we observed increased compliance to the “simplified rapid (1 h) intervention bundle” (the Sepsis 6 bundle – S6) at three time-points evaluated (1 h, 13.7 to 18.7%, p =0.018, 3 h, 37.1 to 48.0%, p =0.013, overall study period, 46.2 to 57.9%, p <0.001). We then analyzed compliance with S6 and hospital mortality in the before- and after-QIP periods, stratifying the two patients’ cohorts by admission characteristics. Adherence to the S6 bundle was increased in patients with severe sepsis in the absence of shock, in patients with serum lactate <4.0 mmol/L, and in patients with hypotension at the time of enrollment, regardless of the type of admission (from EDs or MWs). Subsequently, in an observational analysis, we also investigated the relation between bundle compliance and hospital mortality by logistic regression. In the after-QIP cohort, we observed a lower in-hospital mortality than that observed in the before-QIP cohort. This finding was reported in subgroups where a higher adherence to the S6 bundle in the after-QIP period was found. After adjustment for confounders, the QIP appeared to be independently associated with a significant improvement in hospital mortality. Among the single S6 procedures applied within the first hour of sepsis diagnosis, compliance with blood culture and antibiotic therapy appeared significantly associated with reduced in-hospital mortality. Conclusion A multi-faceted QIP aimed at promoting an early simplified bundle of care for the management of septic patients out of the ICU was associated with improved compliance with sepsis bundles and lower in-hospital mortality.